[Below is the latest from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).]

Nothing to Fear: Debunking the Mythical "Sharia Threat" to Our Judicial System

A Report of the ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief

Introduction

Across the country, state legislators are considering proposed laws that would limit the ability of courts to adjudicate lawsuits brought by Muslims. Proponents of these measures argue that they are necessary because so-called “Sharia law” is somehow taking over our courts. These claims are, simply put, wrong. They are based both on misinformation and a misunderstanding of how our judicial system works.

There is no evidence that Islamic law is encroaching on our courts. On the contrary, the court cases cited by anti-Muslim groups as purportedly illustrative of this problem actually show the opposite: Courts treat lawsuits that are brought by Muslims or that address the Islamic faith in the same way that they deal with similar claims brought by people of other faiths or that involve no religion at all. These cases also show that sufficient protections already exist in our legal system to ensure that courts do not become impermissibly entangled with religion or improperly consider, defer to, or apply religious law where it would violate basic principles of U.S. or state public policy.

This report examines specific court cases that have been repeatedly cited by anti-Muslim advocates as evidence of the so-called “Sharia threat.” Breaking the cases down into three categories — cases involving religious freedom claims; contracts, arbitrations, and other agreements; and public policy issues — the report provides details of each case and puts them into proper context. It does not take a lawyer or expert to see that the cases are routine legal matters and do not stand for the principles that proponents of anti-Sharia measures contend. Rather, these cases are red herrings, meant to distract from the true aim of the recently proposed Sharia bans – to denigrate an entire faith system and to deny its followers the same access to the judicial system enjoyed by citizens of other creeds.

Cases Involving Religious Freedom Claims

Our federal and state laws afford people of all faiths the right to seek relief from the courts when their religious freedom is burdened. Because religious freedom rights are at the heart of such cases, they necessarily involve some consideration of, or reference to, religion. If courts undertake these examinations carefully, without becoming improperly entangled with religion, these cases do not present cause for concern. The alternative would be that people of faith would have no judicial recourse when the government violates their religious freedom rights.

The right of religious exercise has been recognized in court cases involving a variety of contexts and faiths.One such case cited by anti-Muslim groups, Shaheed Allah v. Adella Jordan-Luster, involved a Muslim inmate’s claim that a prison violated his religious exercise rights by failing to ensure that all meat served to him was prepared in accordance with his Islamic religious beliefs. Reliance on this case as evidence of the so-called “Sharia threat,” however, is misplaced for several reasons.

First, in Shaheed Allah, the court rejected the inmate’s claim, ruling that the prison’s practice of serving pork-free meals was sufficient to accommodate his Islamic religious needs. Second, even had the court granted the inmate’s request for a religious diet, the accommodation would be no different than similar diet accommodations that have been provided across the country to, say, devout Catholic or Jewish prisoners. Indeed, religious exercise accommodations have been claimed or granted in a variety of contexts for prisoners of myriad faiths. Thus, Shaheed Allah can be considered evidence that Sharia law is “overtaking” our courts only if one believes that Muslims should be barred from asserting such claims at all.

Of course, Muslims cannot and should not be barred from asserting religious freedom claims in court; nor should courts be impeded in their ability to hear and grant these claims where appropriate under the law. Denying Muslims the same religious accommodations afforded to people of other faiths would be un-American and a complete betrayal of our core commitment to religious liberty and equality. When adjudicated within the guidelines of the First Amendment, cases involving Muslims’ right to free exercise no more threaten the imposition of Sharia law than, for example, cases involving the rights of Christians pose a “Biblical threat” to our courts.

Cases Involving Contracts, Arbitrations, and Other Agreements

Courts routinely consider cases that touch on religion in various ways, even where a religious freedom claim is not directly raised. Our judicial system has long recognized the ability of courts to consider these cases if they are able to evaluate and decide them using neutral principles of law. Singling out and prohibiting cases that happen to involve Islam, while allowing all other similar cases to proceed, would render Muslims second-class citizens and deny them equal access to the courts. Below are examples of the types of cases that proponents of anti-Sharia measures have seized on as evidence of the so-called “Sharia threat.” Once again, however, even a cursory review of the cases reveals how misguided and misinformed these individuals and groups are.

. . .

Claims Implicating Public Policy Issues

Proponents of anti-Sharia laws have seized on and misused any case involving consideration — or even the mere mention — of Islam to stoke fears that our courts are imposing religious beliefs and doctrines that are incompatible with the American way. These fears are unwarranted. Our legal system has built-in protections to ensure that courts do not improperly apply foreign, international, or religious law. Courts are already barred by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment from becoming improperly entangled with religion when considering cases involving matters of faith, and courts may not defer to any law — religious or not — if doing so would result in an outcome contrary to public policy. A closer review of the 4 cases highlighted by Sharia ban proponents shows that our courts are following these rules when it comes to disputes involving Islamic law, either as a purely religious matter or as it relates to a foreign country’s civil legal system. Thus, these cases serve as a source of comfort and confidence that our judicial system is working as it should, and are not the harbingers of doom that anti-Sharia advocates have made them out to be.

. . .

Conclusion

When the court cases cited by anti-Muslim groups are examined more closely, the myth of the “Sharia threat” to our judicial system quickly disappears. Far from confirming some fabricated conspiracy, these cases illustrate that our judicial system is alive and well, and in no danger of being co-opted or taken over by Islam.

[Click here to download the full report, which includes case studies and footnotes.]